Nick Timothy MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2026 · West Midlands Police · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister was also told that a ban was likely in advance of the announcement? The Home Office and No. 10 were in touch according to the official documents. Was she told of the intelligence of 5 September that armed Islamists intended to attack the Israelis? On the point about operational independence, I worry she is overstating things: it is obviously wrong for politicians to tell police officers who to investigate or arrest, but for public order situations there is often a role for the Home Secretary when the planning work is under way before the operation. That is recognised in law and it is why the Prime Minister himself has called for particular policing decisions in public order situations in advance. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that, when she was told that the police would seek a ban on away fans, she did not ask to see the intelligence to justify the ban? Did she test the logic? Is it really true that she did nothing at all?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q12. The police fabricated intelligence to get Israelis banned from Villa Park, as demanded by Islamists. That is not an isolated case. Forces cut deals with dodgy mosques and refuse to arrest preachers who incite violence; the Crown Prosecution Service uses the Public Order Act 1986 as an Islamic blasphemy law; prison governors do deals with Islamists to maintain order; and we all know about the rape gangs. Will the Prime Minister launch a review on the corruption of our criminal justice system by Islamists and the politics of communalism?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. In these debates, the first response is so often to say that it is a question of money. However, the reality is often that we need proper structures, policies and accountability in place so that institutions perform as they should. As the debate has shown, we also have a much wider culture to address. Some of the culture change we need reflects a wider cultural change in society, but some of it is very specific to universities and the work they do to make sure that they meet their duty of care. I therefore agree with the hon. Member. Universities have a responsibility to protect their students from discrimination, intimidation and extremism, but that is not what has happened over the last several years. The last Conservative Government passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was introduced to ensure that universities are safe for the free exchange of ideas and intellectually honest debate. That legislation is still not properly or fully enacted. Students wanting to challenge ideas such as radical gender ideology still risk being threatened and punished for their opinions. At the same time, universities have tolerated protests and encampments that have left Jewish students feeling unwelcome and unsafe. Antisemitic chants such as “From the river to the sea” and “Death to the IDF” have been met with silence from too many universities. The protests that I am talking about have cost £2.6 million in security and clean-up costs across the country since the 7 October attacks. Despite the brazen mass display of antisemitism at those events, only 49 students at 17 universities have been investigated, and even fewer have been punished. Just last week, the United Arab Emirates placed restrictions on its citizens to limit the number who come to study at British universities, due to concerns that they might be radicalised by the Muslim Brotherhood on our campuses. Islamists are finding more ways to infiltrate British universities and institutions to spread their ideological poison undeterred. Just as we must in all our public institutions, we need to take on and destroy that evil in our universities. There is no single clear statute in law that sets out a positive duty of care for universities, but parents have a reasonable expectation that universities will protect and support the young people they are entrusted with educating. That is why my party welcomes this debate. I personally welcome the contributions from everybody who has attended, and I thank Members across the House for engaging so constructively as we work to make universities safe for everyone.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on leading it; I also pay tribute to the families who have brought their tragic stories to hon. Members, which have informed the debate. That is how serious problems, such as the lack of consistent safeguarding for students, are brought to public awareness, and it is how change happens. The themes that have come up today show a clear pattern and demonstrate the challenge across the whole United Kingdom. The main theme was the lack of consistency in safeguarding and care. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe was eloquent in making his case that deciding the law through litigation, not legislation, causes uncertainty and distress for families. Equally, some of the difficulties that exist—such as the need to recognise that students are adults with their own autonomy and responsibility, while parents obviously want to help their children in young adulthood—were also set out well. University should be a rich and rewarding experience for every student. University is when so many young people have a chance to grow, learn more about their passions inside and outside the lecture hall, and decide what they want to do in future. It is when many young people begin to discover who they want to become.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for sharing that very sad story. I reiterate that I know the bravery that it takes for families to share these stories, and the importance of hon. Members repeating them so that we can fully understand this problem. Although my party’s position is not yet fully established on whether we need a statutory duty, we certainly need to do a lot better than we are right now. As well as being an exciting time, university can be when young people are at their most vulnerable. Universities have several legal duties, including health and safety legislation to ensure that they minimise accidents and injuries on campus. There is the basic maintenance needed to ensure that buildings and public spaces are safe, and in recent years we have seen universities take more seriously the task of offering mental health services to students and making sure that there is help available. The proportion of students with a mental health condition has increased from less than 1% in 2010 to 5.8% in 2022, and the Office for Students has recorded an average of 160 suicides a year among students between 2016 and 2023, which is an extraordinary statistic. Like other colleagues here today, I have been contacted by constituents whose families have been affected by this awful trauma. One told me about a relative who committed suicide as an undergraduate. Legal proceedings against the university found that it had failed to make the changes needed to support the student in question. As we have heard today, my constituent is not alone, and so many others have not had the help that they needed during a critical time in their life. These are often complex cases, but universities are obliged to find ways of addressing common problems experienced by students struggling with their mental health. Some students need help to cope with the stress of workloads and exam pressure, moving away from home for the first time, losing touch with friendship circles and family, as well as financial pressures, as we have heard during this debate. In those moments of crisis, universities can and must help. It is also very much the job of universities to make their campus as safe as possible from criminal behaviour. The Office for Students found that 14% of surveyed students reported being a victim of sexual violence, and one in four students reported being a victim of sexual harassment. While this obviously reflects wider social problems, universities must still put in place sufficient preventive security measures and offer support for victims of these very serious crimes.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth: Transport System · Hansard source

  More

  Communities near Cambridge, such as the towns and villages of West Suffolk, need better transport connections, especially given the new housing developments. The wider east needs the Ely-Haughley upgrade, and we need a dualled line from Cambridge to Newmarket and a new rail link to Haverhill. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how developments and transport policies can be better aligned in the east of England?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On 7 October the police told a private meeting that they planned to ban Israeli fans from Villa Park. That was, to quote the minutes, “in the absence of intelligence”. On 9 October they accepted that they needed to find a more clear rationale for the decision already made. On 16 October they said they suddenly found significant intelligence for a ban. That supposedly came from a conversation with the Dutch police on 1 October, before the first meeting held in the “absence of intelligence”. Does the Home Secretary believe West Midlands police—yes or no?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Length of the School Week · Hansard source

  More

  I wish you, Mrs Hobhouse, all Members, Clerks and staff of Parliament, and our visitors today a happy new year. I am pleased to respond to the debate on the length of the school week. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for leading the debate and I congratulate the young people behind the petition who have brought us together to discuss it here. I confess I have not told my own children what I am doing this evening; I hope they are not watching the Parliament channel for the first time in their lives, because my job tonight is to complete the party consensus and disappoint the signatories. While we have heard some valid arguments about teacher recruitment and retention and how the reality of school works for many children, the challenges that we have heard about are probably best met with solutions other than shortening the school week. Broadly speaking, we have more knowledge and data about what works in education that ever before, which gives us some confidence in saying we know how to make education work best for young people. Success obviously depends on rewarding excellence and raising standards, and the research shows that reducing the length of the school week would mean fewer opportunities to learn and improve. Less time spent with teachers in the classroom would lead to fewer activities and teaching hours, especially for the most deprived children, who might lack alternatives to those activities away from their schools. If anything, we need children to spend more time at school so they can enjoy the greatest possible benefit from full-time education. Of course, there should be a balance: schools create opportunities for children to learn social skills, make friends, explore new interests and be active, and no one here wants children to be constantly working without rest or support, especially when they are struggling. However, our schools would be unbalanced by the loss of an entire school day. It is not credible that five days of learning and activity could be realistically compressed into four. Cutting lesson times would harm children, especially those who are struggling the most and need more help. Not only children, but families would suffer. A four-day week would see more than a month’s worth of school time lost over a year. That is 39 days gone—much more than people’s total holiday entitlement. The loss of a whole day would force many working parents to find alternative childcare arrangements at huge personal expense. The cost of childcare, already incredibly high, would go up even further because of the spike in demand, while many other parents would simply work fewer hours or leave their jobs to look after children when they were not in school. Campaigners for a shorter week believe that those problems can be made up for by extending the length of the remaining four days. The petition we are debating today proposed that we add an extra hour to each school day, but that would still mean two and a half hours being lost every week. Even if we extended the school day to a full eight hours under a four-day week schedule, children would be left with fewer hours of education each week. Under the Conservatives, the minimum length of the school week was extended to 32 and a half hours, which helped children to master their subjects, discover new ones, get catch-up support, receive personalised tutoring and enjoy more extracurricular activities. Schools in Wales, where education is not run by the Conservatives, have also trialled longer school days. A four-day week would leave us a global outlier, with English children having less school time than their peers in other developed countries. We know that more time spent in school leads to better outcomes. The Education Policy Institute has reviewed a series of global studies, and found “a more pronounced impact on the academic outcomes of pupils from lower socio-economic backgrounds”. The Education Endowment Foundation has also reviewed studies from multiple countries, and concluded that extended school time can deliver an average gain of three months’ additional progress for children—four months for children in primary schools, and two months for children in secondary schools. There is significant evidence of this working in England. The DFE’s 2003 to 2010 extended schools and services programme, covering 1,500 schools, featured longer school days as part of its pilot scheme. That contributed towards 74% of schools seeing higher pupil engagement in learning and 82% higher pupil engagement in school, as well as a 54% reduction in discipline problems. Research shows that the most deprived schools benefited: nearly six in 10 children on free school meals thought the scheme made an impact on schools with more than 20% of pupils on free school meals, but that falls to four in 10 children for schools with less than 20% of children on free school meals. Parents also agreed: surveys showed that 35% of parents believed their child’s grades improved as a result, 56% observed their child enjoying learning more and 58% saw their child demonstrating better language skills and being better socialised. Longer school days are an important part of delivering more and better enrichment. Thanks to the academies and free schools revolution, that insight has been put into practice, with impressive results. Star Academies’ Eden Girls’ school delivers extra enrichment and learning through additional time between 3 pm and 3.45 pm. It is rated outstanding. Teachers play their part in that extra time, but the school has innovated by working with charities and community groups to give extra activities to its pupils, which means that teachers are enablers rather than being overburdened. Extended school days have been introduced at St Martin’s academy, from 8.30 am to 4 pm, alongside full wraparound care to help parents. The school was rated outstanding last year. All Saints Catholic college, another outstanding school, piloted two non-compulsory extended school days for year 7 and year 8 pupils. The summer term pilot saw a 12% drop in missed homework sanctions and a 16% increase in good behaviour. Academies at the Inspiration Trust in East Anglia have also proved that the approach works. They extended their school days for children in year 7 to year 11, providing an extra 500 days of teaching, or 20 more weeks of learning. Inspiration Trust has also ensured that teacher meetings are more efficiently organised, and that professional development opportunities are available. The results speak for themselves: 66% of pupils at Inspiration Trust primaries meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, which is higher than the 62% England average; 50% achieve grade 5 or above in English and maths GCSEs, compared with 45.9% across all state-funded schools; and 83% of all A-level results were between A* and C last year. Lengthening the school week creates the space for schools to decide how they can best use their time and improve outcomes. Many school reformers rightly believe that that can be done with strong discipline, a knowledge-rich curriculum and teacher-led instruction. That was the insight that shaped the Conservative education reform that made English children the best readers in the world and saw England rise through the programme for international student assessment rankings. However, education reform is never over; it is a constant fight to keep schools in good shape so that children can get the best education possible. I congratulate the young people who made this debate happen, and I recognise the good faith of all those who support the proposal. However, it is the position of my party, like that of the Government and the Liberal Democrats—the boring grown-ups that we are—that a shorter school week would weaken our schools and end up letting children down. Instead, we need to ensure that more time is spent at school and focus on giving every child the best chance to succeed in life.